The Essentials and The Thief
2009 November 10
One of the things that I keep coming back in our recent discussion of the essentials of Christianity is the story of the thief on the cross with Jesus. Here is a man who admits to having not led an exemplary life, and who knows nothing of anything that we would consider correct doctrine or practice in the church today. Did he know that Jesus was fully man and fully God? Did he know anything about the Trinity? What about atonement? This man could not have known about any such things. The value of doctrine to the follower of Christ – at the moment that they enter into a community of believers – is likely next to nothing.
I am reminded of a section from Dunn’s recent Beginning From Jerusalem, when he is discussing 1 Cor. Basically, Dunn points out how the vast bulk of Paul’s letter is spent dealing with social, political, and economic issues and the one doctrinal issue (that about the resurrection of the body) is left to the end (1 Cor 15). Further, while Paul gets very heated and outspoken regarding the prior socio-political material, he seems more disengaged and theoretical when dealing with the doctrine (using much less heated rhetoric and so on) as if this theoretical debate is one that is less important and about which Paul cares less than the other things. Quite interesting, given the importance of 1 Cor 15 to later Christianity and contemporary Pauline studies.
I think we need to be a bit careful here. The thief apparently knew Jesus was the Messiah, else he would not ask him to “remember [him] when [he] came into [his] kingdom.” We don’t know what teaching of or about Jesus he heard before that event. What we do know was that he was not actively following him prior to that moment. Obviously, though, this is a magnificent demonstration of God’s mercy.
Isn’t the salvation of anybody (ourselves surely included) a “magnificent demonstration of God’s mercy”? Why must the salvation of a lestes (“revolutionary” is probably a more accurately translation than “thief”) be any more “magnificent” than the salvation of any of us? (Including Paul!)
I would agree that this man would have known Jesus to be “Messiah” but then that means “anointed one” does it not? He recognized that there was something special about Jesus perhaps he had even seen some of the signs and wonders though it does not follow that he knew any of the bits of doctrine that were codified in the years and decades and centuries to follow.
poser: Well, of course you are correct. I think the grace is highlighted here because this man was “on his deathbed” so to speak; he couldn’t offer God anything except contrition. Most converts are not in that situation.
Dan: Well, Messiah most basically meant “the promised and eschatological king of Israel”. So we can assume he thought he was the true king of Israel. Beyond that we don’t really know what ideas he might have associated with Messiahship.
Andrew,
I find this talk of having something to “offer God” to be interesting. I’m curious how this ties into your thoughts on “grace”.
Dan & Andrew,
I think we might need to step back and think if the terrorist on the cross next to Jesus really did think of Jesus as the Messiah. Saying, “remember me when you come into your kingdom” need not imply that Jesus was the Messiah. Rather, he could be following the trajectory that became prominent (especially amongst Jewish revolutionaries) after the Maccabean revolt (wherein those who were martyred would rise again triumphant in the kingdom of God). So, perhaps this thought hinges on what the rebel meant when he said “your kingdom”. Does he mean that this was actually Jesus’ kingdom, or does he mean the kingdom of God to which Jesus can now lay claim because Jesus is dying the death of a righteous martyr? (At this point, I’m inclined to believe the latter, given how difficult it would be for pretty much any Jew — and a Jewish revolutionary in particular — to consider the crucified Jesus as the Messiah.)
poser:
It seems more likely to me, in light of the context of the story where people are constantly challenging Christ with “If he is the Christ” “If you are the Christ” etc., and that he asked Christ to “remember him”, that he was addressing him as the king of the kingdom, who could decide who would enter the kingdom and who would not, and pleading for mercy. Luke and Luke’s Jesus seem convinced that the OT itself does actually predict an murdered-and-resurrected-messiah, and it’s possible the brigand was being pictured as the first person whose spiritual vision was corrected enough to see that.
“I find this talk of having something to “offer God” to be interesting. I’m curious how this ties into your thoughts on “grace”.”
I of course do think we can offer things to God, but my point was just that this story, in displaying the salvation of a man with absolutely no chance of giving anything to God, corrects any possible misunderstandings that God’s mercy must be bought with equivalent remuneration in good works.
FWIW, it’s also apparent the brigand/thief knows something about the events of Jesus’ trial, because he is aware that Jesus is innocent of the charges against him.
Andrew,
Actually, what you propose doesn’t seem at all likely to me (possible, maybe, but not likely). I don’t deny that Luke’s narrative is one that supports the view of a crucified-and-resurrrected-messiah, nor do I deny that Luke sees such a view rooted in the Jewish Scriptures, but to extrapolate from one sentence that the rebel was “the first person whose spiritual vision was corrected enough” to understand this seems like a massive stretch to me — especially when we read Luke in context.
This includes the first-century Second Temple Jewish context I’ve already mentioned, but it also includes the context of Luke’s story wherein everybody misunderstands what the Messiah is until after the resurrection. Further, note also how the rebel who mocks Jesus refers to him as the Messiah, but the rebel whom we have been discussing does not use the title (despite the fact that everybody else — the crowds, the elders, the other rebel, even the sign posted on the cross in its own way — is throwing it around). He simply refers to Jesus by name.
So, to return to the Maccabean trajectory, remember that the suffering of the righteous martyrs was considered to be a part of what would vindicate Israel as a whole (and, in some parts of the tradition they would also act as judges… a theme appropriated later in the NT by multiple authors). Thus, appealing to Jesus, not as king, but as one of these martyrs makes good sense.
Regarding the trial, I suspect that the brigand was more aware of Jesus’ life and work and the resistance that it sparked from the Powers. Given his outsider status, and given what he likely thought of those Powers, he wouldn’t need to know the details of the trail to conclude that it was a sham.
“but to extrapolate from one sentence that the rebel was “the first person whose spiritual vision was corrected enough””
Well, the entire story we’re talking about consists of five English sentences (according to one translation, anyway), so everything is going to be extrapolating.
I think your alternative is possible, if you have him considering Jesus a future judge in the kingdom of God, but I still think it more likely Luke is presenting him as someone recognizing Jesus as the Messiah. In the context of Luke there is no mention of the Maccabean tradition of martyrs judging, but in the immediate context of the story we have frequent mention of Jesus as the Christ and his capacity to save. There’s clearly some sort of parallel going on between the sarcastic request for salvation from the wicked thief and the sincere request for “remembrance” from the penitent thief, and it just strikes me that Luke would be wanting his readers to make that connection, as it very naturally comes to mind.
Also, having things occur “out of order” would not be absolutely unheard of for the Gospels, as several depict, for example, Gentiles having faith in Christ while Jesus ministry was “only to the house of Israel”.
Further, the thief knew Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. If the thief did not believe he was the Messiah, the implication would be that Jesus was a liar. I’m not sure the thief would expect Jesus to be given a righteous martyr’s reward for falsely claiming to be the eschatological king of Israel. So that would be one more indication the thief believed what no one else did.
Finally, the brigand apparently thought that his own trial was decided justly, at least. But it is possible he could have further background knowledge about Jesus in relation to the ruling authorities. That would only add the the possible amount of knowledge he had about Jesus, though.
I’m not sure what more I could give as evidence to persuade. In the end, either way, it basically establishes Dan’s point: the thief probably did not know everything we know about the Messiah now, but was still accepted for his simple penitence and faith in Jesus.
And also: there is some evidence that suggests the tradition of “Messiah ben Joseph” goes back to the first century. So it’s possible there was conceptual space for the thief to fit Jesus as Messiah into.
Andrew,
A few quick follow-up remarks:
(1) Of course everything is going to be extrapolation. That’s why context is so important as it makes some extrapolations much more probably than others. So, even if those disciples closest to Jesus could not understand how he could die (as the Messiah) despite Jesus trying to tell this to them on more than one occasion, the chances of another person — particularly a brigand — getting this point is next to nil. Further, when people do display a shocking understanding of some aspect of Jesus this is always signaled and reflected back in the text.
(2) Granted, Luke may have wanted (and prepared) his readers to make connections between what the brigand was saying and the theme of Jesus as a crucified-and-resurrected Messiah, but this doesn’t mean the brigand himself was making that connection. This fits well with the theme Luke develops regarding “those with ears to hear” or “eyes to see”. It also fits well with Jesus’ verbal exchanges wherein a person may say something right or appropriate, but Jesus then goes on to explain a better meaning to what was said. Even in Luke’s presentation of the trial it is the chief priests and teachers of the law who are made to confess Jesus as the “Son of God” — even though they (of course) did not believe this confession.
(3) The brigand cannot have known that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah… because in Luke’s story Jesus never publicly claims to be the Messiah (hence all the scholarship around the “messianic secret” in the Gospels). When the demons try to reveal his identity, Jesus silences them, and when the disciples confess Jesus as the Messiah, he swears them to secrecy. Lastly, the trial already mentioned, wherein Jesus accepting the title “Son of God”, was a private setting. The brigand cannot think Jesus was a liar, because he cannot have known that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. He would have known that some thought of Jesus as the Messiah, but that does not mean that he accepted that idea (the fact that he is not mentioned amongst Jesus’ disciples or those who were in the crowds following Jesus, supports [but does not prove] the idea that he did not).
I’ll just focus on (3) since I think it’s the most significant.
Firstly, there are situations in Luke and synoptics where despite Jesus’ secrecy the message got out anyway: Luke 5:15 and 18:39 for example. It is obvious that Jesus did not deny he was the Messiah, and implicitly claimed to be (especially with his entry into Jerusalem and the events surrounding the temple cleansing, cf. Luke 19:38-40), he just did not want people using the term “Messiah” for him during his ministry because of its associations. But nevertheless it did come to be associated with him anyway.
Secondly, it would be a reasonable inference for the thief to assume Jesus did claim to be the Messiah, even assuming he knew nothing of the trial, because the crowds were mocking him incessantly as if he did claim to be so: “If you are the Christ…” The thief had no reason to believe Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah, and positive reason to believe so. (It would be pretty pointless for the courts/crowds to fabricate the charge that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah out of nothing and execute him for that reason; as far as I know that did not happen at any other time during 1C Jewish history. People executed as Messiah-claimants were actually claiming to be Messiah.) If a bystander saw only the execution of Jesus (with the sign displaying his “title”, the crowds jeering him about making messianic claims, etc.), I think they would reasonably infer this person claimed to be the Messiah. They would have no good reason to think otherwise.
BTW, I have enjoyed (am enjoying) this exchange.
Lk 5.15 isn’t about the messianic secret. It’s about Jesus trying to keep a low profile in his healing ministry. Again, although some may have associated such a ministry with messianic expectations, there are no messianic claims being made by Jesus in this pericope nor is it the messianic secret that gets out.
In Lk 18.39, the blind beggar is not being silenced because he is letting out the messianic secret — he’s being told to STFU because he is (perceived of as) a piece of shit beggar who shouldn’t be bothering decent people with his noise. Again, what he says has strong messianic overtones but — given the disdain with which he was being treated, there’s not much chance of him being taken seriously (or seriously threatening the messianic secret). Hence, Jesus doesn’t silence him (although he does heal him — and in doing so, restores his status within the community).
Lastly, regarding the so-called ‘triumphal entry’, it’s might be useful to view that as a piece of street theatre that mocks the standard messianic expectations. Such acts of mockery do not necessarily make a counter-claim to authority. So, for example, in the old practice of Carnival (or Saturnalia, as it was practiced in the Graeco-Roman culture of Jesus’ day) the King of Fools mocks the King (or Emperor) but nobody actually thinks that the King of Fools is laying claim to being a true or higher authority. Of course, some of those around Jesus still read this piece of street theatre as making such a claim, but it is significant that the Roman authorities (who were on high alert during Passover) did not perceive this as any sort of messianic claim or threat (otherwise they would have probably grabbed Jesus then and there). Thus, even this event need not be read as Jesus making of public declaration of his messianic status — nor need it be read as though all those who heard about this event would think that he was making such a public claim.
Regarding your second point, I still think that you are overlooking the significance of the fact that the brigand did not refer to Jesus as the Messiah but calls him by name. If you thought Jesus was the true Messiah, I think he would have used the title. On this point, we’ll probably just end up repeating ourselves.
I’ve also very much enjoyed this dialogue. I’m curious what Dan might think of it all.
Poser:
Re: Luke 5, I would say whether or not the healing ministry was seen to have a messianic overtone, it at least does make us question how successful Jesus’ secrecy about *anything* was. Re: Luke 18, the fact that Jesus healed and restored to community the blind beggar would strongly suggest to the onlookers that Jesus was siding with the beggar. But the beggar explicitly was calling him “Son of David”, an obviously messianic title.
As for the triumphal entry: firstly, I’m not sure it should be taken as mockery at all. It seems more likely Jesus was intentionally fulfilling scriptural prophecy here, and thereby also patterning himself after Solomon (who also rode a donkey). But more significantly, Jesus explicitly agrees with the children who call him Messiah, and does so in a highly public way. It seems that by the time Jesus has come to Jerusalem for the last time, he’s no longer trying to keep his “messiah”-ship a secret. The Pharisees’ complaint in John’s Gospel that “the whole world has gone after him” surely express the truth about what happened in the last week of Jesus life, and would make it highly likely anyone in or around Jerusalem at that time would be aware of what was going on. As for the Romans’ response, perhaps they were waiting to see what would happen. At that point Jesus had not officially called for any kind of violent revolution, and likely Pilate would have liked to avoid bloodshed if possible, for his own sake.
I think I should re-iterate that ultimately none of this discussion undermines Dan’s point. However, and I might say more about this in a later post, I’m not sure how far this text will get us in the ecumenical work we have to do. Evidently the apostles later thought more than acknowledging Jesus to be a righteous martyr (if we accept your reading) or the Messianic king (if we accept mine) was required to be considered part of the church. The Judaizers would have affirmed both.
An interesting thought occurred to me last night: What if this was an instance of a variation of Pascal’s wager? Maybe this man heard the jeers of the crowd or had heard rumours of this Jesus guy (cf: the story of the soldier asking Peter if he knew Jesus: if the soldiers knew about this miracle-working trouble maker from Galilee, the gossip could have easily spread among the prisoners they had under guard too) and concluded that, well, appealing to this man couldn’t make his predicament any worse. The crowd wasn’t going to help him, the soldiers weren’t going to help him, the scoffer on the far side of Jesus wasn’t going to help him, why not at least ask the quiet guy in the middle?